EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RE: LETTER OF MRS. MA. CRISTINA ROCO CORONA REQUESTING THE GRANT OF RETIREMENT
AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE LATE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA AND HER
CLAIM FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION AS HIS WIFE UNDER R.A. NO. 9946

What is the purpose of impeachment?

The object of the process is not to punish but only to remove a person from office. As Justice
Storey put it in his commentary on the Constitution, impeachment is "a proceeding, purely of a
political nature, is not so much designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against
gross political misdemeanors. It touches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests
him of his political capacity." Put differently, removal and disqualification are the only
punishments that can be imposed upon conviction on impeachment. Criminal and civil liability
can follow after the officer has been removed by impeachment. Prosecution after impeachment
does not constitute prohibited double jeopardy.

Impeachment is, thus, designed to remove the impeachable officer from office, not punish
him. It is purely political, and it is neither civil, criminal, nor administrative in nature. No legally
actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a mere judgment of impeachment against
him or her, and thus lies the necessity for a separate conviction for charges that must be
properly filed with courts of law.

Will forum shopping and Double jeopardy apply in impeachment proceedings?

The nature and effect of impeachment proceedings is so limiting that forum shopping or alleged
violation of the right against double jeopardy could not even be successfully invoked upon the
institution of the separate complaints or Information.

There is forum shopping "when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court." The test to
determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are
present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other.

Thus, forum shopping exists with the concurrence of the following elements: (a) identity of
parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action
will, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under
consideration. Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all
later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit. Impeachment being sui
generis, its final culmination, whether a dismissal or a conviction, would not constitute res
judicata for the basic reason that the principle of res judicata does not find application in purely
political processes.

The criminal law principle of double jeopardy also finds no application against an impeached
public officer.

Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached
prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second
jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid
indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been
entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent. The right against a second conviction for the
same offense shall not be imperiled upon a mere judgment of impeachment. Suffice it to state
that a first jeopardy finds no opportunity to arise at that point, as the essence of impeachment
is not criminal in nature.

What is the difference between Quo warranto and impeachment?

It has been already elaborated in Republic v. Sereno that while both impeachment and quo
warranto seek the ultimate removal of an incumbent government officer, the two differ as to
nature, jurisdiction, grounds, the applicable procedural rules, and limitations. Impeachment is
political; quo warranto is judicial. In impeachment, the Congress is the prosecutor, the trier, and
the judge, whereas quo warranto petitions are instituted either by the Solicitor General in
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or by an individual claiming the public office in issue,
both of which petitions are cognizable only by the Supreme Court. Impeachment proceedings
seek to confirm and vindicate the breach of the trust reposed by the Filipino people upon the
impeachable official, but quo warranto determines the legal right, title, eligibility, or
qualifications of the incumbent to the contested public office. The 1987 Constitution, as
supplemented by the internal rules of procedure of the Congress, directs the course of
impeachment proceedings. Quo warranto cases, on the other hand, are dictated by the Rules of
Court. The end result of an impeachment proceeding is the removal of the public officer, and
his or her perpetual political disqualification from holding public office. On the other hand,
when a quo warranto petition is granted, ouster from office is likewise meted, but the Court
can likewise impose upon the public officer additional penalties such as reimbursement of costs
pertaining to the rightful holder of the public office and such further judgment determining the
respective rights in and to the public office, position, or franchise of all the parties to the action
as justice requires.